[127905] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Standard for BGP community lists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Tue Jul 20 03:27:16 2010
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:26:53 +0300
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <0407CEDC-13D4-45E7-AB22-66E963FE76AD@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On (2010-07-19 23:45 -0500), Brad Fleming wrote:
Hey,
> 9999:9999 for local rtbh
> 9999:8888 for local + remote rtbh
>
> I didn't have much reason for selecting 9999 other than it was easy
> to identify visually. And obviously, I have safe-guards to not leak
> those communities into other networks.
I would recommend against using other public ASNs for internal signalling,
ASN part should be considered property of given ASN. AS9999 might want to
use 9999 to signal particular source where route was learned and your
customer might want to do TE with it. Now you must delete them on ingress
and rob your customers of this possibility.
Hopefully future community (*wink*wink*blink*blink* Raszuk) standards will
explicitly state that this is faux pas.
--
++ytti
